RE: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I will only answer the email from Dan on sming@ops.ietf.org
To subscribe: send email to majordomo@psg.com
in body:         subscribe sming
Archive:         ftp://ops.ietf.org/pub/lists/sming*

Doing it this way, I hope to stop the cross-postings

Bert
> ----------
> From: 	Dan Romascanu[SMTP:dromasca@avaya.com]
> Sent: 	Friday, October 27, 2000 1:04 PM
> To: 	'sming@ops.ietf.org'; Dave Sidor
> Cc: 	David Perkins; Andrea Westerinen; mibs; nim
> Subject: 	RE: [nmrg] RE: Proposed IETF Working Group: sming
> 
> 
> Bert,
> 
> I think that Dave Sidor's message is a good example about some of the not
> so
> clear issues concerning this new work proposal. Note that I am now
> addressing the content, and not the procedure issues.
> 
> 1. You are mentioning that the proposal intents to 'move SMI forward to
> address some of the issues that have been raised in the last so many
> years'.
> In this case the first step should be to specify which problems we propose
> to solve. Maybe the first item in the deliverables list should be
> 'Requirements for SMIv3 document'.
> 2. The text of the proposal still seems to indicate that it takes upon
> itself to provide an answer to the problem of the common information
> model.
> Dave Sidor read it this way, so did I.  I happen to be convinced that such
> a
> model is needed, and deserves a separate framework, and SMIv3 is not the
> answer.
> 3. I understand so well that we focus on SNMP and COPS, but it is too
> early
> for having decided about the solution. I think that I agree with your
> assessment in a previous mail, that the floor should be open for different
> proposals. This would include the good work done in the ITRF, but should
> not
> exclude other proposal that may come from different sources. The future
> Charter should have clear text about this.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
>